JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

There's a lot of talk here about the use of third-party inks, as opposed to OEM ink made by your printer's manufacturer. I gather that folks like Red River make some fine ink. However, I have had some experience that tells me that some third-party inks are not too good.

I have some photos printed for exhibit in 2008 by a fellow I hired prior to my first exhibition. Seven years have passed and these images still look great, with no sign of fading. I have no idea what kind of ink or paper the guy used, but the combination must've been good, as these prints are framed with plain glass, and as I say, there's no sign of fading.

I have some prints made more recently, some now over a year old, all printed on an Epson R260, using the inks made for same by Epson, and printed on Epson's Ultra Premium Glossy Photo paper, and again, no evidence of fading is to be found.

However, I have a Brother MFC-495CW all-in-one printer. scanner, etc, that I use for scut work, as in, printing of B/W documents and other work where color quality is not a concern.

Recently, I placed some new images at my local art gallery. I needed to manufacture some title cards for these prints, and as I began to work them up, I decided to save myself some $$ by using some HP paper left from a printer my wife no longer uses. Inasmuch as the Brother is my scut printer, when it came time to buy new ink, I went to eBay and found a package of off-brand cartridges, eight of each of the machine's four colors, total of 32 cartridges, for less than $50.

So I printed my display tags on the old HP glossy paper, with the off-brand ink. The tags looked great when first printed, but I visited the gallery a few days ago, about five months after my exhibit went up, and discovered that the tags were fading, and noticeably. The nearer the prints are to the gallery's front window, the more faded they are. One print sat in the front display window for a time and its tag is now a muddy orange color.

So. it seems that one can buy cheaper inks, but one does need to be concerned about archival quality if one uses same.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Caveat Emptor

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Here is a picture of two prints I have hanging on my wall in the store. The one on the left is printed with refill inks from Costco, the one on the right is printed with genuine HP inks in an officejet 7000 printer. Same image, same printer, same paper, same settings, and one year ago last month they looked like the same print. You can clearly see the Costco inks are NOT of archival quality. I would venture to guess that in the next two or three years you won't even be able to tell what the image is of with the refilled cartridges. And these prints are not exposed to direct sunlight at any time, they are by the front door of my store and that door faces due North.
Judge for your self.

(Download)

wireman8 Loc: Toledo, Ohio

I've always used canon inks and paper in my canon printer, and I've never been disappointed. Just my experience.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

it seems that the REAL "disappointment" is the rediculous cost of propriatery inks..

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Good example of dye vs. pigment inks.

SnapHappy Loc: SW Florida

Thank you so much for this. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words, right? And I was just about to try Costco's ink refills too. Good timing. What a great forum this is!

cntry Loc: Colorado

The best advice for using third party inks can be summed up in one word...Don't...

hochspeyer Loc: Chicago

Truth.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I would say, "try it". At least once, or you'll never know for sure. I used to use only HP photo paper for my HP printer. Then one day I tried the Polaroid brand. Not only did the Polaroid paper produce superior prints, it was significantly cheaper than the HP paper.

hochspeyer Loc: Chicago

HP and Polaroid are both name brands. By analogy, try using copy paper- you certainly wouldn't expect to get the same results! ;-)

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

True, both are name brands. But the discussion is about using third party instead of oem. Besides, as the Polaroid paper is available at dollar stores for a 10-sheet 8x10 pack, I'm not so sure "name brand" really means that much beyond licensing out the name.

hochspeyer Loc: Chicago

I think that this really does apply much more to ink than it does to paper. Paper is fairly simple in relation to inks and their delivery/application systems.

cntry Loc: Colorado

The question isn't how they look when you print them, but how they will look in a year or two or three...
I have photos hanging on my wall right now that were taken with a 35mm, scanned in and printed using genuine HP inks about 8 or 9 years ago that still look good. I have a stack of 4x6's that I printed out a few years ago using a third party (Office Depot or Office Max brand) ink that are trash.

I don't know what difference, if any, the paper would make in how long they last.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Perhaps no difference in how long a print will last, but papers are made to work best with the inks made by the same company. I've made some prints using HP paper and Epson ink. These were images I'd printed before, using Epson paper. The difference was easily discernible. Had the same issue, but not nearly so noticable, using Ilford paper and Epson ink.

There are those companies, like Red River, who make fine inks and paper, but using off-brand cheap ink will not produce long-lasting results, regardless of the paper used. Best to match brands on paper and ink.